The main legal point established in the judgment is that a kudikidappukaran who acquired the status after 1.1.1970 is entitled to all rights and privileges due to a kudikidappukaran, if he satisfies all the conditions contained in the definition clause.

K.K. Usha, J.

The question that is referred for consideration of the Bench is whether a kudikidappu as defined under S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 can come into existence after 1.1.1970. A Full Bench of this Court in Mary Yohannan v. Sreekumaran Nair, 1991 (2) KLT 751 has set at rest this dispute eight years back holding that a kudikidappu can come into existence even after 1.1.1970 and right to purchase kudikidappu rights is not restricted to persons who acquired the status of kudikidappukaran before 1.1.1970. The reference was necessitated since the learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge before whom the C.R.P. came up for hearing, a judgment of a learned Single Judge in Mohammed v. Abdulla,199? (1) KLT 410 which contains observations to the effect that no kudikidappu can come into existence after 1.1.1970.

2. We heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent. The very same question came up for consideration before a Bench by way of reference in the year 1979. In Kunhimama v. Vasu, 1979 KLT 88, a Bench of this Court took the view that the mere fact that the kudikidappu sprang into existence only subsequent to 1.1.1970 would not disentitle the kudikidappukaran to the status or the privileges conferred by the Act, so long as the other conditions of the definition stand satisfied. While rendering the above decision, the Bench had the advantage of hearing learned Advocate General on the interpretation of the provisions contained under S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. Learned judges agreed with the two earlier decisions of this Court in Punishan v. Prakasan, 1977 KLT 10 and Padmanabhan v. Kunhalikutty, 1978 KLT 140, and over-ruled an earlier decision in Chacko v. Paul, 1974 KLT 743 which took a different view. The Full Bench in 1991 (2) KLT 751 supra took into consideration all the above referred earlier decisions and affirmed the decisions in 1977 KLT 10 and 1979 KLT 88, while holding that a kudikidappukaran who acquired the status of kudikidappukaran as defined under the Act, after 1.1.1970 would be entitled to all rights and privileges due to a kudikidappukaran, if he satisfies all the conditions contained in the definition clause.

3. We will now examine the decision of the learned Single Judge in 1997 (1) KLT 410. In the above case, the appellant-defendant contended that he had constructed the building in question on the basis of permission granted to him by the plaintiff and that since he would come within the definition of 'kudikidappukaran', plaintiff cannot claim recovery of possession of homestead from him. Trial Court as well as 1st Appellate Court found that there was no acceptable evidence to prove grant of any permission by the plaintiff. It was also held that defendant had not established that the building was constructed by the defendant Land Tribunal and 1st Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the building was not a but since the cost of construction could have exceeded Rs. 750/- and the rent it could have fetched would have exceeded Rs. 5/- per month on the relevant date. In second appeal, learned Single Judge was not inclined to interfere with the above-mentioned concurrent findings. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, it was observed as follows:

"In such a situation, there is no justification for this Court to interfere with the decree for recovery of possession granted by the Courts below especially when there is no dispute regarding the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property".

After holding that on facts, the second appeal has only to be dismissed, learned judge went on discussing about the question whether right of kudikidappu can arise when the occupation commences after 1.1.1970. Reference was made to 1974 KLT 743,1977 KLT 10 and 1978 KLT 140. Quoting from a portion of the judgment in 1978 KLT 140, which is a Bench decision, learned Single Judge took the view that ratio of the